By: Dr. Farooq Hassan *

President’s address to Pakistan Ecology Council

Avari Hotel, Lahore, Pakistan
3rd February, 07

In the current debate on environmental and climate changes many perspectives have been examined by concerned scholars and activists. I have already articulated at length the need for meeting the challenges that lie ahead from Islamic perspectives *1. This analysis is thus fundamentally an evaluation of the extent of this monumental problem facing mankind. Consequently, in view of the nature and extent of problems in this area, it is submitted that to obtain real progress ahead it seems necessary to work for a true and genuine international cooperation. This is particularly necessary at this juncture as the Kyoto Protocols are expected to expire in 2012 *2. Appropriate thinking and its concomitant remedial steps, if any, have to be devised as such without delay. With these thoughts in mind this presentation anlyses the latest major international efforts that are in evidence on this subject.

Background

The concept of sustainable development dates back a long way but it was at the UN Conference on Human Environment (Stockholm, 1972) that the international community met for the first time formally to consider global environment and development needs. The 20th anniversary of Stockholm took place in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro. The UN Conference on Environment and Development, the “Earth Summit”, agreed on Agenda 21 and the Rio Declaration.

The Summit brought environment and development issues firmly into the public arena. Along with the Rio Declaration and Agenda 21 it led to agreement on two legally binding conventions: Biological Diversity and the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC). The Kyoto Protocol is a document signed by about 180 countries at Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997. The Protocol commits 38 industrialized countries to cut their emissions of greenhouse gasses from 2008 to 2012 to levels that are 5.2 per cent below 1990 levels.

“Greenhouse gases” means gases (like carbon dioxide) which are mainly generated as a result of burning fossil fuels like coal, petrol and diesel. How greenhouse gases are produced and what impact do they have on the environment? A greenhouse gas is a term of art used for such gases as described above and connotes that state of affairs that are being surely reached with irreversible consequences.

While, the use of these fuels has helped industrialization enormously, it has caused a steady increase in levels of carbon rich gases and other pollutants. Scientists predict that higher levels of greenhouse gases will cause a significant warming of the earth in the future by about one to five degrees Celsius. *2 This could cause potentially disastrous changes in the environment resulting in violent storms, expanding deserts and melting ice caps, causing sea levels to rise and engulf coastal regions. According to one estimate, global warming could cost the world about $5 trillion. *3 Developing countries are expected to be the hardest hit. *4

Current developments

An examination of the most current contemporary literature on this point reveals that the greatest push for the adoption of such a policy has indeed come from the UN itself. The top UN official on climate change says the failure of world leaders to agree on global warming means it is time for the UN to take the lead. Yvo de Boer, head of the UN Climate Secretariat, wants a summit of world leaders to talk about what happens when the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012.

He gave these views to an established British news agency in an interview barely a couple of weeks ago on 16th January 2007; he importantly concluded that despite rising sea levels, there is no agreement between powers that may be on how to deal with global warming’s long-term threat. In fact de Boer admitted frankly that the process is getting more and more complicated as there seems to be no real international remedial action in evidence to tackle the damage by the worst offenders of global warming. *5 Realistically speaking there is nothing that any country can do by itself to accomplish pollution control when powerful nations such as the US and Australia are not indicating that they would do something meaningful. Mr. de Boer emphasized that it is thus vitally important as such for the “world” to agree on how carbon emissions should be curbed after 2012.

The UN bureaucrat went on expound the well known thesis that different countries have varying needs with resultant attitudes; developing nations, for example, want their economies to grow in the most inexpensive manner and they do not want to take any action that might make them uncompetitive; then there are countries such as the US that just have backed away from even endorsing Kyoto. On the other hand European countries are pressing hard for controlling this menace before it gets out of hand completely. As such he opined that the UN has the potential to bring together all the competing groups together to initiate a dialogue at least in the right direction.
He accordingly suggested that:

“I feel it is so important to bring the question of climate change back to the UN process. Back to the UN framework convention on climate change, where basically all of the interests can be addressed and you can find a solution for after 2012 that really does represent the diversity of use.” *6

The new UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, has said tackling climate change is a priority for him. In his first official visit to Washington to meet President Bush he said in an important speech in Washington on 1/11:

“Tackling climate change is an all-encompassing threat to the coastal cities in which nearly half the world’s population lives. In my tenure this will remain a priority matter for me to deal with.” *7

While saving the populations of coastal cities is very crucial, global warming has already started to have a crude kind of impact on weather patterns on a word wide basis. This impact is having tangible influence on the lives of even the ordinary persons in many places. How? Let us see a natural phenomenon that all of us have perceived recently. This is the current unusual winter for Europe and the US, the mildest in recent history. From New York to London to Geneva, to Amsterdam to Bonn it is the same question: where is the winter? Temperatures are high and the weather is mild everywhere. Literally “global warming” has begun!

Let me advert to some personal experiences of this somewhat unique weather patterns that have been felt in the US and Europe this year. So mild, in fact, that in middle of January when I was visiting my daughters in Washington DC and Boston, I saw people inclined to be sitting in the sun as people do in the Sub Continent in these months with temperatures constantly in the 60s and on some days even in 70s! On the other hand during the same period, the North West was being pounded by repeated snow storms. For three weeks running severe snow hit the mile high city Denver’s Airport bringing chaos to continental air traffic! Indeed seeing many hundreds of passengers stranded, I was quick to alter my travel plans through this Airport! Furthermore, while visiting my youngest daughter in Seattle during this trip, I discovered that so seldom is this kind weather experienced there that even a little snow effectively paralyzes the entire civic system!

The story in Europe is not dissimilar. In some parts of Sweden, ordinarily a very cold country, where the temperature these days should be -20 Celsius, it has been +10 through out most of December 06 and January 07. Where people should have been shoveling snow from their front drives, not a flake of snow has fallen. Same is the case with the rest of Scandinavia. Everybody is intrigued at this climate change. Now even skeptics seem convinced that the carbon emissions and atmospheric pollution have finally caused the much dreaded weather changes to emerge to occur that were predicted by scientists about climate change. These visible climate changes are now being felt in the Western countries where the causes of this problem are said to chiefly emerge.
Weeks after Christmas, winter clothing is clogging the inventory of department stores. Normally, the winter sales in major stores are great events because of the bargain winter clothing one can pick up. Apparel sales accordingly at this time of the year are the most popular in all department stores. This year however, business has been quiet. Sales at Macy’s on 34th Street in Manhattan and Harrods and Selfridges’s in London, for example, are down by over 20 % from the same period a year ago. Winter sports are feeling this terrible pinch as well as consequence of this queer weather change. On the plus side, however, the lessening of domestic oil consumption in the North East has caused a sharp decrease in demand for such energy sources with a significant drop in its prices.

In Europe, ornithologists are worried that spring birds and the bees have come out but bound to die as the weather gets cold again. “It is an ecological catastrophe” according to the Chief Medical Officer of the London Zoo. This year there is less snow in the Alps and the glaciers are melting. It is warm when it should be cold and cold when it should be hot.

For its part, the big industry at least in Europe is on the offensive. Companies in France, including Arcelor Mittal, the world’s largest steel company, are protesting against the EU regulations capping the carbon emissions from about 10,000 different units. Mittal, which employs 135,000 workers in Europe, feels that the policy threatens at least two of their plants as capping the carbon emissions has raised the production cost to unfeasible level, giving rise to import of steel from countries (US and China) which have lax rules for environment.

But apparently determined to stick to its environmental commitment, the EU is proposing new restrictions on construction companies, electronic makers and electricity companies. If the proposals are approved, electricity grid operators will be connecting with wind farms and solar cells, industry and power generators will be given incentives to capture and store carbon waste, car makers will control emissions further and more non usual kinds of fuels will be used in the transport sector.
It is thus time to think of other forms of non traditional fuels options such as the energy produced, inter alia, by grass pellets. Big business and industry is influential in Brussels, but the environmental lobby has been visibly more effective in its efforts and resultant influence over newer legislation which compels the industry to think more vigorously about scientific advancement of its goals to find alternate energy sources.

Europe demonstrating its more progressive attitudes in respect of this matter in caparison to the US has gone further towards identification of exploration of alternate forms of energy. EU has unveiled far reaching energy plans that is going to spread the net to control global warming even more broadly, opening a larger debate on whether European economy can afford higher commitments to “green growth” while large polluters like US, China, and Australia are not doing so. The industry lobby in Europe, as in most of the rest of the world, continues to put its weight against such thinking, however. Writing to the President of the European Commission on their behalf recently, the E.U. Industry Commissioner argues, “We need to demonstrate environmental leadership, but there is no point in doing so if we have no followers- especially if it comes at a significant cost to EU economy”. “Our growth and jobs priority must not be endangered…” he cautioned.

For a change, however, the US counterparts of such Big business have thought it better to put their very considerable influence behind the preservation of the environment. On the 19th January, just before the Presidents State of the Union Address for the year 2007 nine leading American giants of the industry joined hands to emphasize for the first time in a joint and bold manner, by adopting a united stand against business exploitation of the human environment. Chief executives of nine of the largest companies in the US have urged President George W. Bush to introduce measures to tackle global warming by supporting a mandatory cap on greenhouse gas emissions.

However as soon as these proposals of the American industry were introduced to the US media, it was announced by the White House that it will it will not introduce binding rules for emissions; two important points in this regard, however, deserve special mention:

1. President Bush has in the past rejected mandatory controls on greenhouse gases.

2. The US withdrew from the Kyoto protocol in 2001.

These nine American corporations that have formed this group - the US Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) - which they intend to use to push for mandatory caps on greenhouse gases to cut them by more than 60% by 2050. “We can and must take prompt action to establish a coordinated, economy-wide market-driven approach to climate protection,” the chief executives said in a letter to President Bush. “It’s time for the nation’s political leaders to come together and act,” Duke Energy chief executive Jim Rogers - a USCAP member - told reporters at a news conference in Washington recently. Other members of the USCAP are CEOs of Alcoa, BP America, Du Pont, Caterpillar, General Electric, Lehman Brothers, FPL Group and PG and E.

The pressure from big business stems from a desire for clarity which is not apparently visible or uniform in governmental regulations presently applicable to the American industry. At the moment, some states impose caps but the severity varies. It seems to some optimists inevitable that the White House would have to make important changes about energy efficiency and greenhouse gases. But for the moment the White House press secretary Tony Snow said “binding economy-wide carbon caps” are, however, not a part of Mr. Bush’s approach.

So has there been a visible shift in the actual policies of the Bush Administration to match this progressive trend in American industry? In his latest State of the Union address, President George W. Bush focused on a strategy to expand the use of alternative fuels - mainly ethanol - in an effort to slow America’s oil consumption. “Twenty by Ten”, as the strategy is known, aims to cut projected petrol consumption by a fifth within a decade. What is Twenty by Ten? It is a strategy to cut projected petrol consumption by 20% over the next ten years. The aim is to replace about 15% of the petrol used in vehicles with renewable fuels, or biofuels, and cut petrol use by a further 5% by improving the fuel efficiency of the cars driven by Americans.
The 20% petrol saving, it is estimated would be the equivalent of 75% of current oil imports from the Middle East.

Let us also see some technical aspects and terms relevant in this debate. First, from where are the biofuels meant to come from? Production of biofuels will have to increase fivefold according to current estimates to achieve the projected results. The chief biofuels promoted by Mr. Bush is ethanol, much of which would come from growing corn crops. But he also said he envisaged it being produced from “everything from wood chips, to grasses, to agricultural wastes”. Mr. Bush is seeking $3.6bn for researching and developing the new fuels. His reference to these other sources seems encouraging.

Three particular questions in this analysis still need precise responses.

(1) How more fuel-efficient will American cars become?

Mr. Bush envisages the first major changes to US vehicle fuel economy standards in decades but the cuts are relatively modest, at an annual average of 4% for new cars from model year 2010. Blue water Network, which lobbies for better fuel economy standards, dismissed the proposal as being a “gift” to the motor industry. “If the President were serious he would call for a doubling of the nation’s fuel economy standards,” it said. Mr. Bush also said he was also looking to increase domestic oil production and he wanted to strengthen America’s energy security, doubling the country’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve by 2027.

(2) What is Mr. Bush’s priority on energy?

Surprising to some advocates of pollution controls, the US President considered that dependence on oil needed a change of course because of considerations of “national security”. The US, said Mr. Bush, had been “too long dependent on foreign oil” and was “vulnerable to hostile regimes and terrorists”. This means that oil is required to be prudently used for aims which have nothing per se any connection with scientific justifications for controlling emissions but is really strategic and political in nature.

(3) What about climate change?

President Bush, whose country accounts for about 25% of global greenhouse gas emissions, called climate change a “serious challenge”. He said it should be tackled through technology but he did not talk of specific limits on emissions and there was no sign of him adopting a comprehensive strategy. However, he did call for more electricity to be produced from carbon-free sources like wind, solar and nuclear power plants. Regrettably this talk seems merely rhetorically oriented.

Environmentalists Evaluation

Experts from various leading American and international agencies exclusively concerned with climate and environment, generally speaking do not think that the current 2007 proposals or ideas of Washington go far enough to realize the aims set out by the needs of the problems being faced by mankind. They accordingly do not regard the 2007 initiatives, including the use of ethanol as significant. The US green charity National Environmental Trust (Net) notes that energy and the environment have featured in every State of the Union address Mr. Bush has made but, they say, his policies have never matched his goals. However, the United Nations’ chief on climate change, Yvo de Boer, welcomed Mr. Bush’s embrace of more sustainable forms of energy and noted that he had used the word “serious” when talking about the challenge of climate change.

Kurt Davies from the environmental lobbying group, Greenpeace USA, has serious doubts about whether ethanol is the ideal solution to America’s energy crisis.
“All the fossil fuels that are used in the production of corn, in the fertilizers and in the fuel, in the ploughs and transportation and so on and in the distillation process, it becomes almost a very dirty fuel,” he said. In other words, the concept of “dirty fuel” has to be properly understood while addressing the question of alternative sources energy.

It is important to keep in mind that the intentional community may not lose sight of the fact that the consequences of this climate change phenomenon have the potential to be devastating. Let me to support this point refer to a recent press briefing given by Hans Blix. This will hopefully caution the advocates of those perspectives whose main concern is predicated by only “security” considerations. It should be realized that pollution is a greater threat than nuclear blasts for the future of mankind. It is, ab initio, an unsound policy to ignore this potential for disaster of the planet as a proper habitat for life.

Speaking in Cairo he said on 17th January 2007 that Global warming is more dangerous than the spread of nuclear weapons. Former UN weapons inspector Hans Blix gave this warning while speaking to journalists on the final day of a recent visit to Egypt promoting his commission’s report on reducing weapons of mass destruction worldwide he said *8:

“The threat against the global environment and global warming are a greater threat than weapons of mass destruction. It is of utmost imperative that the whole world reduces the emission of greenhouse gases”.

He concluded:

“Nuclear power can give the world enormous amounts of electricity without giving any greenhouse gases if the world sees this realistically.”

It is thus clear that, given the international political realities, world wide pollution can only be genuinely combated by sincere efforts of the world community of nations. It is no longer possible for country or a group there of to go ahead and try to achieve such pollution controls that would be potentially successful. But as countries seem to believe that they have other more pressing problems at hand, I am not very hopeful that the kind of suggestion contained in this presentation will be accepted in the near future. However, this is not a reason to abandon these efforts.

Important international efforts, however, continue to be made with such objectives. In this context a reference to the latest of such important international meetings would be helpful. Recently, the second meeting of the Parties to Kyoto Protocol (COP/MOP 2) and Twelfth session of the Conference of Parties (COP) concluded on 17th November 2006 in Nairobi, Kenya. The Conference was attended by six thousand participants form one hundred and eighty countries including the UN. Also in attendance were Secretary General Kufi Annan, President of Kenya Kibaki, and President of Switzerland Lauenbeger, who all addressed the session endorsing its broad goals. Also speaking were many ministers and important leaders of the Third World for the same cause. The conference made many recommendations and I hope that they would attended to in due course.

It is for this realization that I endorse for adoption of an international environmental treaty, preferably as a UN sponsored climate control mechanism, for achieving the goals set out in this analysis. To illustrate the practical feasibility of this point let me refer to an important, though limited, evolution of such thinking in the Asia Pacific region.

The Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and climate is, for instance, a collaboration between six developed and developing countries to address energy, climate change and air pollution issues within a paradigm of economic development. Australia’s climate change efforts in the Pacific region include $9.3 million for stage 3 of the Sea Level and climate Monitoring Project, the $4 million Vulnerability and Adaptation Initiative the $2.3 million climate Prediction Project, and support for PICs to attend relevant international meetings. It also shows that Australia, though not willing to do much domestically with pollution regulations per se because of political necessities of its incumbent regimes in power, still does support strong international efforts to prevent further chaos in respect of pollution damage.
On the scientific level it is most important to note that just as this research paper was being finalized, a call has been given by the world’s leading climate scientists (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control) to pay urgent need to this problem which is becoming graver by the day under present policies of several countries the of world. A major international report on climate change, which was announced from Paris on 2nd February, 2007, is expected to say that scientists are 90% sure that human activities are to blame for warming over the past 50 years.

To evaluate the latest scientific data collected by this world class panel of experts it is necessary to briefly examine its recommendations.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) draws on research from 2,500 scientists from more than 130 countries and has taken six years to complete. As such if any further convincing was still required that the burning of fossil fuels is to blame for global warming, it has been provided at the highest level of expertise.

The findings examined hereinafter are the first of four IPCC reports to be published this year. Amongst its foremost conclusions are the following three deserving our immediate attention:

Global climate change is “very likely” to have a human cause

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says temperatures were probably going to increase by 1.8-4C
(3.2-7.2F) by the end of the century.

It also projected that sea levels were most likely to rise by 28-43cm, and global warming was likely to influence
the intensity of tropical storms.

Human causation

“We can be very confident that the net effect of human activity since 1750 has been one of warming,” co-lead author Dr Susan Soloman told delegates in Paris.
The report, produced by a team tasked with assessing the science of climate change, was intended to be the definitive summary of climatic shifts facing the world in the coming years. The agency said that it would use stronger language to assess humanity’s influence on climatic change than it had previously done. In 2001, it said that it was “likely” that human activities lay behind the trends observed at various parts of the planet; “likely” in IPCC terminology means between 66% and 90% probability.

Now, the panel has concluded that it was at least 90% certain that human emissions of greenhouse gases rather than natural variations are warming the planet’s surface.
They projected that temperatures would probably rise by between 1.8C and 4C, though increases as small as 1.1C (2F) or as large as 6.4C (11.5F) were possible. In 2001, using different methodology, the numbers were 1.4 (2.5F) and 5.8C (10.4F)

On the crucial questions of rising sea level, there has been a more fundamental debate. Computer models of climate do not generally include water coming into the oceans as ice caps melt. So the IPCC had to decide whether to exclude this from its calculations, or to estimate the effect of a process which scientists do not understand well but which could have a big impact. They used the former, more conservative approach, projecting an average rise in sea levels globally of between 28 and 43cm. The 2001 report cited a range of nine to 88cm.

As for climate change influencing the intensity of tropical storms in some areas of the world, the IPCC concluded that it was likely - meaning a greater probability than 66% - that rising temperatures were a factor.

Dr Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, told delegates in Paris on 2nd February while announcing the recommendations of his distinguished panel:

“It is extremely encouraging in that the science has moved on from what was possible in the Third Assessment Report. If you see the extent to which human activities are influencing the climate system, the options for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions appear in a different light, because you can see what the costs of inaction are.”

The executive director of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), A. Steiner said the findings marked a historical landmark in the debate about whether humans were affecting the state of the atmosphere. Mr. Steiner, whose agency oversees the operation of the Kyoto Treaty, added:

“It is an unequivocal series of evidence showing that fossil fuel burning and land use change are affecting the climate on our planet. If you are an African child born in 2007, by the time you are 50 years old you may be faced with disease and new levels of drought.”

He however, concluded that he was hopeful that the IPCC report would galvanize reluctant national governments into positive action in the right directions.

Previous views too conservative?

I may at this juncture also with advantage refer to a report which actually suggests that the estimates of IPCC have been less that fully candid about the real impact being faced by the world on account of the environmental damage by human activity. If this view is correct, it only heightens the gravity of the prospects being faced by mankind. This research study was published on the eve of the IPCC report suggested that the international body’s previous reports may have actually been too conservative. Writing in the journal Science, an international group of eminent scientists concluded that temperatures and sea levels had been rising at or above the maximum rates proposed in the last report, which was published in 2001. The paper compared the 2001 projections on temperature and sea level change report with what has actually happened.

The models had forecasted a temperature rise between about 0.15C-0.35C (0.27-0.63F) over this period. The actual rise of 0.33C (0.59F) was very close to the top of the IPCC’s range. A more dramatic picture emerged from the sea level comparison. The actual average level, measured by tide gauges and satellites, had risen faster than the intergovernmental panel of scientists predicted it would.

The IPCC’s full climate report will be released later in the year, as will other chapters looking at the probable impacts of climate change, options for adapting to those impacts, and possible routes to reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.

International Reaction

The report’s central thematic message arrived at after six years of truly global scale efforts by more than 2,500 top scientists, says, inter alia, that world temperatures could increase by 3C by 2100 and its projection that sea levels were most likely to rise by 28-43cm besides asserting that global warming was likely to influence the intensity of tropical storms has had a chilling effect on most observers. Many influential leaders around the world have furthermore, appreciated this focused warning to the governments. It may be noted that the above mentioned findings are the first of four IPCC reports to be published this year.

Let us now briefly turn to the reaction of the major countries on this announcement by the IPCC. Although this Report was made pubic barely hours ago there has been an encouraging endorsement of its suggestions by many important nations of the world including the US. Governments around the world have called for urgent action to tackle climate change directly on the publication of this major report. The EU said it was the starkest warning yet; the EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas adding that he was now deeply concerned by the accelerating pace of climate change:

“It is now more urgent than ever that the international community gets down to serious negotiations on a comprehensive new worldwide agreement to stop global warming.”

Similarly the UK said climate change threatened world peace and prosperity. UK Environment Secretary David Milliband said that international political commitment, which had so far been lacking, was now needed.

The US administration said the report was “valuable”, but still rejected mandatory controls to reduce greenhouse gases. US Energy Secretary Sam Bodman said he accepted the conclusions of the scientists. “We’re very pleased with it. We’re embracing it. We agree with it,” he said. “Human activity is contributing to changes in our Earth’s climate and that issue is no longer up for debate.” But he added cautiously that a unilateral US program to cut emissions might damage the US economy and send business overseas. Meanwhile the head of the Senate Environment Committee, Barbara Boxer, called on Mr. Bush to show “real leadership” on the issue of climate change. She said:

“I’m calling on the president to convene a summit at the White House of the 12 largest global warming emitters,” *9

She importantly added that she would bring the IPCC scientists to brief the Senate in the next few weeks.

South Africa’s Environmental Affairs Minister Marthinus van Schalkwyk said failure to act would be “indefensible”. And officials from Indonesia and the Maldives said they feared for the future of their countries, both threatened by rising sea levels. *10 While it is too early to assess the views of many poorer nations on this matter, it is possible that they may not take a vigorous diplomatic action in respect thereof leaving the struggle to more significant actors in this debate such as the European Union. It is thus necessary for me to dwell on the effects of climate change on such counties of the world.

Effects on Agrarian economies in the Third World.

Thematically it would be helpful for supporting this point by referring to another important publication that projects graphically the effects of climate changes on the agriculture based economizes of many poorer Third World nations. Many such nations are in Africa and Asia. This thesis strongly echoes in an official Report published by the UN very recently in December 2006. It gives the totality of the picture of the global state of affairs with respect to the deterioration of this planets habitat by the projected climate change ad its effect on the agriculture potential of mostly the developing world. In the words of this UN report “efforts to help developing nations adapt to the impacts of climate change have been woefully inadequate”. The findings appear in the UNDP’s Human Development Report 2006.11

This development oriented survey brings out the perspective that “rich countries have focused on ways to reduce carbon emissions but have largely ignored helping poor nations cope with the consequences.” The Report says that the farmers whose crops are reliant on rainfall already have to cope with unpredictable weather. It is further stressed in this that climate change “now poses what may be an unparalleled threat to human development”. Lead author Kevin Watkins points out that the people living in vulnerable conditions already had to adapt. He says in this Report

“There is a lot of evidence that the droughts in the Horn of Africa this year are connected to climate change. This is not an issue for 50 years down the road; it is an issue for today.”

Mr. Watkins added that the worst affected areas were regions with very limited water infrastructures, such as Sub-Saharan Africa. He further observed.

“It is not a region that has the irrigation capacity or the water harvesting capacity to store water in ways that can smooth out irregularities in supply More than 90% of people living in rural Sub-Saharan Africa are dependent on rain-fed agriculture, so what happens to rain and moisture content in the soil has very profound and immediate implications for poverty.”

He warned that crops yields could fall by a third or more in some regions.

Climate concerns

While the outcomes may vary from country-to-country, the report said some “broad consequences” could be predicted in the following four categories:

Agriculture and rural development will bear the brunt of climate risk.

Extreme poverty and malnutrition will increase as water insecurity increases.

More extreme weather patterns will increase the risk of floods and droughts.

Shrinking glaciers and rising sea levels will reduce access to fresh water.

Because industrialized nations have focused their climate change initiatives on reducing the amount of greenhouse gases being pumped into the atmosphere, support for adaptation in developing countries has been “piecemeal and fragmented” laments the UNDP report. Mr. Watkins goes on to observe in this Report:

“The adaptation agenda is somewhere between embryonic and heavily under-developed. Funding under the Kyoto Protocol currently amounts to $20m annually; so this is something that, as part of the multilateral negotiations, has not had any weight attached to it.”

He also said that adaptation funding through the Global Environment Facility (GEF) would be about $50m over the next three years. Mr. Watkins said:

“What we are facing is one of the potentially biggest set-backs to human development in Africa in the past 100 years or more, and the response from the international community to date has been $70m,”

Will this UNDP report and the one issued by the IPCC inspire action? What can be done now to prevent disaster? Only time will provide us surely with ultimate answers. As I have been acutely aware that the even learned communities may not be able to keep abreast of the major international efforts in this field, I have endeavored to collect together in this presentation all the relevant details of the most current applicable international efforts in this regard. I, for one, believe that the best course is the one to go to the UN for ensuring a truly global devising of appropriate strategy to combat this potential destruction of our planet’s living habitat capacity.

End Notes
∗ D.Phil.; B A Juris, MA. M.Litt, (Oxon), DCL (Columbia), DIA (Harvard), Of Lincoln’s Inn, Barrister at Law, UK, Attorney at Law, US, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (QC) of Pakistan; President Pakistan Ecology Council; amongst his major international recognitions include the Massachusetts Senate Honor of Recognition 1994 and in 1995 for his work in international human rights and education, the grant of highly prestigious King Faisal Memorial Award for 2002 by Saudi Arabia and in 2003 he received the International Professor of the Year of Human Rights Award in Riyadh, the 2006 London International Islamic Award for his work in Women’s needed legal reforms in Muslim countries; he was also the David M. Kennedy Visiting Scholar & Professor of International Studies, Kennedy Center & Visiting Professor, Fellow, Center for International Affairs, Harvard University. The author has been Advisor to four Pakistani Prime Ministers on Foreign Affairs & Law, Member & Delegate to the UN Human Rights Commission, and the UN Sub Commission on Human Rights, Geneva. He has also represented Pakistan delegations to the UN GA and was the leader of Pakistan Delegation to the International Criminal Court (ICC); He is currently the UN Special Ambassador for Family, the President of the American Institute of South Asian Strategic Studies, Boston; In 2004 he became the first Pakistani scholar to be given a distinguished Visiting Professorship in India such as at the JNU in Delhi, & to give Memorial Lectures at Benaras Hindu University, Universities of Mumbai, Goa and at Ambedkar Center at Aurangabad University.

i See the author’ s Presidential Address to the Pakistan Ecology Council at the Karachi Hall, Lahore High Court Bar Association, 6 October, 2006, Lahore, Pakistan, entitled Islam: Environmental Protection

ii The leading climate scientists of the world have appealed to the international community in the first week of January 2007warning of the acute dangers that lie ahead if global warming is not drastically curtailed. See IPCC REPORT 2007

iii See e.g. http://www.ec.gc.ca/glossary_e.html#C The Canadian government has done tremendous work in this field.

iv Many third world countries continue to ignore the international clamor for initiating appropriate laws in their domestic systems to tackle this menace for the reason that their economies cannot cope to deal with emergent problems. It has been seen, therefore, as in the case of India that it is the judiciary that has taken the lead to implement whatever laws exist. The Supreme Court for instance passed an order that all local public transportation had to convert to CNG by the end 2004 for it operate on city streets. Consequently for weeks even government owned buses were laid off from plying on the streets until their conversion had been completed. In countries such Pakistan there is scant respect for such an approach leading to terrible pollution in its cities.

v The BBC internet edition of this date carries this comment.

vi See the BBC News Internet Edition for 16 January, 2007

vii Op cit.

viii Blix gained international prominence as the Chief UN inspector who maintained ahead of the US-led invasion in 2003 that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. After leaving the United Nations after the Iraqi invasion had begun, he was commissioned in 2003 by the Swedish government to lead a 14-member international commission to study how to end the presence of weapons of mass destruction in the world. His remarks on 1/17/07 came as the nuclear temperature in the Middle East was rising over Iran’s decision to continuing enriching uranium in its own nuclear program, a move the US fears will result in the development of nuclear weapons.

ix See New York Times, 3 February 2007. The US contributes around one-quarter of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions.

x See BBC internet edition for 3rd February, 2007.

xi Beyond Scarcity: Power, Poverty and the Global Water Crisis, UNDP REPORT 2007

Trackback this Post | Feed on comments to this Post